I am an
attorney in Washington State, where assisted suicide is legal. Our law was
passed by a ballot initiative in November 2008 and went into effect in March
2009. Our law is similar to Ballot Question 2.

In Washington State, my
former clients own two adult family homes (small elder care facilities). Four
days after the election, the adult child of one of their residents asked about
getting pills for the purpose of causing his father's death. It wasn't the
older gentleman asking for his "right to die."[1]

At that time, our law
had not yet gone into effect; the man died before it did. But if our law had
been in effect, whose choice would it have been? The choice of his son, or the
choice of the older gentleman?

In Washington state, we have already had
suggestions to expand our law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal people.[2]. More disturbing, there was this discussion in the Seattle Times
suggesting euthanasia for people unable to afford care, which would be on an
involuntary basis for those persons who want to live. Columnist Jerry
Large stated:

"After Monday's column, some readers were unsympathetic [to
people unable to afford care], a few suggested that if you couldn't save enough
money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you
out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution."[3]

I never
saw anything like this prior to our law's being passed in 2008. Be careful what
you vote for.